Saturday, October 31, 2009

In keeping with Singapore's state controlled newspaper's duty of constantly trumpeting the life time boss of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew, the Straits Times online edition of October 28, 2009 has this article "MM Lee honored in the US". But if you were not very careful reading it, you may have thought that this man was in fact honored by the US Government. It was nothing of the sort. The award of a life time achievement was given to him by a private American organization called US-Asian Business Council. Had it been the US Congress, the Senate or some official US body, it would have been different. It would have been substantial. But no. It was only a group of businessmen who felt that this man has helped American businessmen do business in Singapore. And in the hope that he will continue to bend over backwards for them, which is very likely, naturally they give him an award of some sort.

The article says he was given it for his contributions towards US and Asean ties. He is being honored for doing no more than promoting the interests of American companies such as Nike, who also have plants in Indonesia and various parts of the world, and the various other small and big American companies who are given given preferential treatment in taxes and all manner of benefits to make profits in Singapore. Mind you, profits for Americans, not Singaporeans. As to how much all this has helped Singaporeans or whether the whole presence of foreign companies in Singapore is a good thing, whether they actually hurt local Singapore businesses more than they help them; and how many Singaporean businesses have lost out because of this preferential treatment are questions which have remained unanswered.

Then the article states 3 US Presidents Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and George Bush sent congratulatory messages; as if this is something we should all be proud about! Mind you, each one of them stayed away from the occasion preferring to merely send messages. We do not know why they did not attend or was this a message to all that they would have preferred not to be seen with a dictator; we do not know. And as to their sending congratulatory messages, why shouldn't they if Singapore is helping US businesses? They would be silly not to. Every president of the US would honor any foreign president if it promotes US interests.

It goes on to say that Henry Kissinger and George Shultz were present to clap him on. Of course Henry Kissinger and George Shultz would do it. Why not. They sit on various boards of international companies which have major business interests in Singapore. They would be letting down their companies if they did not do it. Lee Kuan Yew is their best friend, after all. Surely this is the least they could do.

It goes on to say that Lee Kuan Yew is the first recipient of the life time award. If I am not wrong, the late Ferdinand Marcos, the dictator of Philippines was also a very good friend of US Business while he trampled on the human rights of his Filipino people. He too was honored numerous times by US Business. So was the Indonesian dictator Suharto. So was the late Shah of Iran the US stooge who ruled his country with an iron grip just like Lee Kuan Yew does. He too I understand was honored by US business interests. The Iranians under the Shah were so good to US business interests, he completely destroyed local industry. One Iranian told me that in 1978, Iran even purchased chickens from the US with their unlimited oil money.

And then Dr. Schultz describes Lee Kuan Yew as " Ideas, information, clarity of mind, integrity of purpose. Mr. Lee Kuan Yew is truly a great man who has been a wonderful friend over the years". Surely. Very nice. Very nice indeed. I wonder whether he knows that Lee Kuan Yew pays himself $3.9 million a year, controls the entire media in the island, retains the Internal Security Act jailing those who oppose him without trial, uses compliant judges to crush political opposition and denies the fundamental rights of free speech, expression and assembly.

I wonder whether he also knows that there is massive emigration of intellectuals from Singapore, Singaporeans refuse to have children and the island of 5 million people only has about 2,000 lawyers!

I wonder whether he knows that in this Alice in Wonderland island, permits are needed to speak in public, which by the way are always denied!

Would Shultz still have said the same words if he knew this, or does it not matter what he does to his people, as long as he serves American business.

The reader should again be reminded that this award is nothing. It is not a Nobel prize which even Dr. Kissinger has received. Neither is it anything from the American government. It is merely an award from a bunch of rich Americans who are grateful for Lee Kuan Yew's continued support and preferential treatment for them over and above the interest of Singaporeans. That is you.

This is another propaganda piece from Singapore's state controlled media to praise Lee Kuan Yew, the strongman of Singapore. You could expect this sort of thing also from other dictatorships such as North Korea in praise of their leader Kim Jung IL.

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.

I am a student from Singapore planning to study in USA and while googling on extradition by the USA, I chance upon your blog. I am also never a supporter of PAP for various reasons. (Mainly I believe a roles in government cannot be dynastic)

I have a question to ask and hope you will help me. I am also studying law(both civil and criminal) on my own as an interest.

Firstly I am a conscientious objector/pacifist and I do not wish to serve the army and plan to continue my university studies in USA without serving the army. I plan to be a scientist in future possibly forever in the USA.

I would like to know if I would be extradite back to Singapore from USA if I failed to enlist?

Also if I failed to enlist am I breaking the military law or does Singapore classified military law under criminal law?

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Lee Kuan Yew's recently hand picked Minister for Law, the recently appointed K Shanmugam spoke, at the orders of his master perhaps, to the New York Bar Association who had met at a seminar in Singapore on October 28, 2009.

As expected of someone trying hard to argue the unarguable, his speech was a total flop. For one thing, the first 5 pages of his 10 page speech had nothing to do with law. It was a history lesson on Singapore since 1959 up till date, which any one of the Americans listeners could have found out himself without having to come all the way to Singapore. You know what I mean; the same old drivel, that we are a small island, blah blah; that we had nothing in 1959, blah blah; and now look at us with this beaming office etc etc.

Another man in history could have made an identical speech, and that was Adolf Hitler. He too could have rightfully said that in 1920s Germany was in shambles, the Reich Mark was worthless etc etc, and look at us today in 1938, the strongest country in Europe. And so what? It doesn’t prove anything. What is the point of having all these glass buildings and opulence if you have to live in fear everyday as Singaporeans do; fear of Lee Kuan Yew? If you don’t have the rule of law?

In fact in the very first Para of his speech, he was alluding to the grandeur of the recently built high tech and ultra modern building which is intended to house legal conferences and so on; as if that by itself raises the standard and the quality of justice in Singapore. In fact, I think the people would much better prefer to sit under a banyan tree and have real and true justice dispensed, rather than this opulence with a corrupt and biased legal system that you have in Singapore.

And mind you, so had Adolf Hitler in 1938. His courtrooms too were the best in the Europe of the time. And just like in Singapore, you didn’t have any real justice in them.

And after the history lecture, he gives a law lecture. He tells the American lawyers the elements of the rule of law, what it entails and what it requires. Surely these bright and experienced lawyers from New York need not have come to Singapore for that!

And then this Lee Kuan Yew's man trying very hard to protect his master as well as his own position; since if his master is gone, he wouldn't have any of those millions of dollars that he is paid; goes on to justify Singapore’s unjust law of detention without trial comparing it to the American's Guantanamo. This is an unjust comparison and the Americans know it; and by saying it to them, he is insulting their intelligence.

Americans were almost all against Guantanamo. But there is one difference. Under the Articles of War signed in Geneva after the War, enemy combatants in an armed conflict can be held without trial and released at the end of hostilities. The Americans by a stretch claim to be in a war, which they call the war of terror, and therefore claim the right to hold enemy combatants until the end of hostilities.

Second, Guantanamo is not US territory which requires due process. It is as you know in Cuba. And so Bush conveniently argues that since Guantanamo is not in the US, enemy combatants there are not entitled to due process in the same way as someone within the US. As far as I know, no one within the US has been detained without trial. Only one person Joseph Padilla, was initially held in this manner, but was subsequently given a trial. In Singapore none of these considerations hold. Singapore is not at war with anyone. Second, Singapore does not have a detention facility abroad. In these circumstances comparing Guantanamo to Singapore’s detention of people without trial is totally misplaced. I trust the Americans can see through this and put this man in his place.

That is why I have always said that Mas Salamat Kastari was unjustly detained in Singapore and now is similarly detained in Malaysia. There is no basis to hold him without trial. If there was evidence against him, he should have been brought to trial and if guilty, sent to prison. The very fact that he is not given a trial is clear evidence Singapore had nothing to hold him. This is an abuse of the law and has a chilling effect on everyone which is one reason why there is almost a mass exodus of Singaporeans wanting to emigrate and leave Singapore permanently.

Then he justifies caning people because he claims the British introduced the law in the Middle Ages to Singapore or slightly after that, and therefore he is obliged to retain it. If the British had introduced burning a man on the stake, would he have kept that too? Caning is a barbaric inhuman punishment. The very fact that Singapore manages to retain it without any opposition clearly shows the people have no say in how the country is run.

Then he justifies Singapore’s unjust criminal laws which deny the Defendant any real opportunity to dispute his accusers by alluding to the fact there is less crime in Singapore than in New York. Of course there is less crime. What else did you expect with such brutality inflicted on those who committed even petty offenses like vandalism, who will be beaten on their butts (caning) until their skin flays and their bottoms are bloodied. I know another country where it is very safe, Saudi Arabia. Over there your hand is chopped off. And unless you want to be a one handed ex convict, you better not commit any crime. I was told the Japanese Military Police formerly in Singapore, also kept very good law and order. If not, your head was chopped of off that very minute with a samurai sword. Not wanting to a headless ex convict, Singaporeans too under the Kempetai kept law and order. But what sort of stupid argument is that? And of all people in the world, he is trying to argue this stupidity to New Yorkers who love their liberty!

And then he tries to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes by arguing that Singapore criminal defendants are allowed legal representation just like American defendants, a shameless lie once again. Let me tell you this from personal experience. On May 31, 2008 while in Singapore I was arrested for allegedly criticizing a Singapore judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean for her bias. After I was arrested I was kept in solitary confinement at Central Police Station for 14 days or so. During this time, I was repeatedly interrogated both day and night with all sorts of threats and inducements such as the threat of extending my stay in solitary unless I co-operated.

Numerous statements were taken from me day and night and at each time I was asked to state that there were no threats or inducement even though there was clearly a threat to extend my confinement and further threats that I would be charged under the Sedition Act which meant I could spend 3 years in jail. During this entire time, my lawyer was not permitted to see me and I had no legal representation whatsoever. As I was a lawyer and I believed in my rights, I was able to withstand their torture, and their denying me a right to legal representation. Had I been any other person, I would have confessed to anything they wanted just to be released from solitary confinement. And this man K Shanmugam has the cheek to say that they have the rule of law! What law? Lee Kuan Yew’s law?

In Singapore he says people have no right to protest and engage in other forms of civil unrest. In Singapore according to him, the people are entitled to vote and once they did that, the rulers can do anything they want. This is exactly what happens in Singapore. And what he does not tell the Americans is the fact that the elections themselves are rigged. Remember the Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew’s son himself had said he will "fix" the opposition.

And then he says there is no corruption. And what does he call paying the Ministers, including himself, $3.9 million dollars a year? Salary? If that is not corruption, what is it? In fact Singapore is far more corrupt than Indonesia or even Burma. I don’t think the military junta in Burma pay themselves $3.9 million a year like the Singapore Ministers, him included!

And then he says, Singapore judges are not corrupt and their tenures are guaranteed. Tell me, who would want to leave the judgeship or be corrupted if they get paid millions of taxpayer dollars each year. There is no need for them to be corrupted. Their salaries themselves are corruption.

I can go on but there is no need. This man has tried to mock the intelligence of these American lawyers as if they did not know better. And I tell you what; it is not K Shanmugam who has had the last laugh. It is these well read worldly American lawyers who have permitted him to make a fool of himself.

One thing he should always keep in mind though. He is not as safe as he thinks he is. The batteries in his Benefactor and Patron are fast running out. Lee Kuan Yew is 86 years old. Perhaps this recently selected Minister for Law should think what sort of speeches he would make when his patron has gone to his Maker.

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.

Monday, October 26, 2009

Not one, but almost all of Lee Kuan Yew's ministers and himself have said repeatedly, with Singapore's small size, it's people is Singapore's greatest asset. It has got to be, since there are no natural resources expect the sea port. But we know now of course this is all a load of hot air. To use a stronger expression, one whole load of bullshit. Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore deliberately neglects it's people. Which is why there is no hope really for this island.

Education has to be key. And not just any education but a real one. The education that you give should equip the student to tackle the real world, to tackle the Englishman, the Irishman and the Bushman if you have to. Which means to say, you are teaching them to think independently. And they learn everything they need to learn, especially what freedom means, what free speech and expression means, and the courage to say that 2 and 2 are 4, even if Lee Kuan Yew wants people to say it is 5.

Yes, you said it. They have to think independently. Not what is only politically correct, like they do now in that small island.

So to educate the children, you get real teachers, not the timid souls we see in Singapore who are so afraid of Lee Kuan Yew that their students come out of their classes as robots, afraid to criticize Lee or anything that goes on around them. Since Singaporean teachers have already been brainwashed and terrified beyond help, you need to bring in real teachers with some backbone from abroad. Bring in British teachers, Australian teachers and American teachers. Teachers who are prepared to call a spade a spade no matter wind or high water and will equally teach their children so.

Number 2, you have to feed the children. This means parents who are poor have to given assistance. I mean real assistance, not just giving them 200 dollars and asking them to go. Without money, they can hardly feed themselves, let alone their children. Consequence is poverty and neglect and a lack of education. After that kind of eduction they are only good enough to join Lee Kuan Yew's police force, only knowing how to obey orders and nothing else. They in effect have no brain at all. In it's place there is a vaccum.

Now if you provide good education and a meaningful financial welfare for the needy, you not only get better educated students able to compete and stand up to the rest of the world, you also get a grateful and loyal citizenry, one that supports and appreciates their country and their government. And such a population would work for their country, for their people and have a stake in the Singapore that they belong to. Now on the other hand, with Lee Kuan Yew completely neglecting the needs of their people, they not only have disregard for their government and their country, you also have contempt, and outright hate. In fact a large segment of the people actually dislike their life so much, they want to leave Singapore at the first opportunity.

The leaders themselves have lost their respect totally. In Singapore, success depends not on your ability but how much you are appreciated by Lee Kuan Yew and his government. An aspiring student in Singapore now works primarily to achieve government recognition, beyond their personal ability. So that is why you see Lee Kuan Yew's recently hand picked Minister for Law, K Shanmugam, coming up with a spate of harsh laws restricting Singaporean's human rights because that is exactly what will please his master. I doubt if he personally believes anything he does. And you have a situation where this man's career depends entirely on the patronage and support of one man, Lee Kuan Yew, which he flouts to the fullest. But at the same time we know, the moment Lee Kuan Yew's support is withdrawn, he would be on the streets of Serangoon Road penniless. That is why this sort of Singaporean success is despised by most self respecting people. In fact were it not for Lee Kuan Yew, no one would even given a second look at this Tamil Singaporean. His abilities are no better than any other struggling Tamil lawyer in the cheap cubicles of People Park Center across from the Subordiante Court.

And this you see is the same for each and every Singapore government Minister, Member of Parliament, Civil Servants and anyone holding any office of importance. No one truly respects any of them, as they all got to where they got, not entirely on ability but by, to use a colloquial pharse, licking boots; Lee Kuan Yew's boots to be precise.

And then when you see these minsters paying themselves the highest salaries in the world, for a small island like this, you then lose all respect for the government entirely.

So what you end up is a people that have hatred for their government, and a government that neglects it's people and their children.

In these circumstances, there is no way you are going to have any success for this small island. Nothing at all. The only asset you have, the people, are themselves mediocre. In sum total, you have an uneducated workforce, a people that have hatred for their government, where success is achieved primarily by receiving the recognition of the people at the top, and the constant insecurity of the lack of welfare and for everyone, even the rich, the fear that they might lose their jobs, or the patronage of the Lee Kuan Yew, which means instant poverty and misery.

And then you have complete power in the hands of the government, with the people completely helpless to decide their own destinies. The government will decide, and you little people or "digits" as Lee Kuan Yew has called them, just obey. In truth, they are no longer citizens, they are slaves.

This is not a recipe for success. This was what the former Soviet Union or Roumania was. At least they lasted some time, because they were larger countries. With a system no difference from those failed states in this small island, tell me how long for Singapore?

And especially now since we know for sure the 86 year old octogenarian and strongman, leader for life, Lee Kuan Yew's batteries are beginning to run out anytime. How long does Singapore have?

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

I am not sure if the time has already come, but if not yet, it is pretty close. Today in spite of all the good news printed daily in Singapore's state controlled press, there is a huge segment of poor in Singapore, unable to pay for their daily necessities and struggling each day to stay alive. At the same time, you have the ever growing numbers of super rich whom Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew has vowed to protect, claiming recently that the growing income gap is inconsequential or something similarly heartless.

The ground in now perfect for civil disobedience. You have a crowded Singapore, the seconded most crowded place int he world. Any kind of pubic protest will be noticed throughout the island and if popular, will spread like wildfire.

And you have all the elements necessary. A large section of population with families and children unemployed and left entirely to fend for themselves. No money and the children starve or nearly so. You have no real social welfare, no unemployment benefits. The only thing you can do is to go begging to your local Member of Parliament who may or may not help with a few dollars. And even if you get the money by chance, it is totally insufficient even for your basic needs.

And with no assistance from the government whatsoever, people are turning increasingly to illegal loan sharks who charge exorbitant interest and hurt and maim you if you don't pay.

And while all this hardship goes on, Singapore's life term dictator says that nothing is wrong. Singapore is perfect and Singapore is best and so on ad nasueum.

Tell me, how much more can you take. Even for Singaporeans who are perhaps the most tolerant in the world to government bullying, how much more can you take anyway.

This is why I ask the Singapore Democratic Party's Dr. Chee Soon Juan or anyone else, any civic minded Singaporean to come out and do the right thing. Gather sufficient numbers of poor Singaporeans and organize a peaceful protest. Tell them the only way this heartless government is going to listen is if you took serious measures. And that measure is to protest.

I have no doubt that this government will be forced to listen if you did the right thing now. Which is to protest. After all justice is on your side. The Ministers pay themselves millions while you suffer and starve. Even a small sacrifice on their part can mean a great help to you. And it is their duty to you to do it. They are feeling safe thinking their police and their Gurkha guards will harm if you exercised your right. Today, I am not so sure that they (the police) would do it, or whether they would even obey their commands to arrest you. In any case, remember, this intolerant authoritarian government cannot imprison everyone.

Now is the time. Do it. The situation on the ground is perfect. What are you waiting for?

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.

Singapore's state controlled newspaper Straits Time's online edition of October 22, 2009 has this story, "Loan shark runner jailed". It is the sad story of another instance of this dictatorship's weird punishing laws where a 16 year old girl is being sent to prison for 4 years, because she spray painted a door of a government apartment and attempted to cause a fire to it even though no fire actually occurred.

She did this to a debtor who had owed some money to a loan shark; for a small amount of cash. According to this state controlled newspaper, just as all the newspapers in the island are, loan sharks are becoming a major police problem due to their rise in number occasioned by the economic depression and joblessness in the island. The government's attorney, according to his argument in court, has felt it necessary to send a "unequivocally strong deterrent signal to such youths that they will not be treated lightly because of their age or their clean records"! And the judge agreeing, then decides to send this 16 year old girl, who had no previous criminal record whatsoever, to prison for 4 years.

Let me say this very clearly. Any legal system that sends a 16 year old girl to prison for 4 years simply for vandalizing an apartment door with paint, no matter how serious a police problem there is, is not first world, as claimed by Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's life term dictator. It is not even third world. It is barbaric, worse than the Middle Ages!

And not just that. This is very bad law and very bad jurisprudence. And that is why, despite whatever nonsense Singapore's Minister for Law, Lee Kuan Yew's handpicked K Shanmugam might say, this is hardly London, Paris or Rome. It is not even Kinshasa, the Congo! It is worse than that.

Let me tell you what any first year law student would say. A more severe punishment can be used in cases when a particular crime is rampant, so as to send a deterrent message. On the other hand you also consider the offense itself. Since this is a minor offense, any way you look at it (remember no one was hurt), sending a person to a long prison sentence is simply wrong.

Second, you try to avoid prison sentences, even short ones to juveniles, like this 16year old girl. We never know, this girl might turn out to be a jewel, another Madeline Albright or Golda Meir. You don't want to spoil it by destroying her chances with a long prison sentence, as surely this 4 year prison sentence would do. And I am sure you know what it would do to her. She would come out after 4 years a broken woman, broken in both mind and spirit, a woman who would in all probability be of no further use to society.

Recall, they send me to prison for 3 months to a Singapore jail last year for criticizing the corrupted judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean. But that is not going to affect me, either mentally or otherwise. I am old enough to see through this stupidity. But what about this 16 year old girl. She may have made this mistake at the spur of an unthinking moment. What right does this dictatorship have to destroy her mind and her spirit and any possibly of redemption permanently with this 4 year prison sentence.

In the law of sentencing, you not only think of deterrence. You also look at the crime itself, how serious it is. And what consequences this would have on the defendant. In Singapore on the other hand, all Lee Kuan Yew's corrupt judges know is to simply increase sentences whenever a particular crime is on the rise. This sort of sentencing does not take into account the social psychological and societal consequences. This is simply a wrong system of justice and inimical to Singapore's welfare and development. Instead of nurturing and encouraging the weaker sections of the community, you are simply destroying their spirit entirely.

The punishment should fit the crime, no matter how compelling the argument for severity. In this case it does not. It once again shows proves the observations made by the International Bar Association in their 72 page report on Singapore, that it has a flawed legal system. And no matter how much this man K Shanmugam tries to say that it has the rule of law, we can see how silly his argument is.

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.

Friday, October 23, 2009

The Tumasek Review, political blog on Singapore reported on October 22, 2008 "Apathy in Law Society Elections: 4 candidates for 8 seats". This is not surprising at all since we already know since about 2 decades ago, the legal profession there has been steadily shrinking, despite an increase in the population, with the total number of lawyers being just over 3,500. But what is surprising is, despite this fact, which we all know, Lee Kuan Yew's recently handpicked Minister for Law, a Singaporean Tamil in a predominantely Chinese government, K Shanmugam, has said recently that it has either become, or will soon be, a legal hub like London, New York or Rome and other legal centers of the world!

Granted, Singapore's newspapers are all controlled by him and his boss Lee Kuan Yew, and as such he can have anything he wants published, however fanciful, but surely even in such a case, he should at least consider what others might think, when he utters such nonsense!

And this complete indifference and disgust shown to Singapore's legal system as a whole, for it's total lack of integrity or rule of law was manifested a few weeks ago at the Society's annual general meeting. There were 8 positions available for lawyers as office bearers, 4 in the senior category and 4 in the junior one. The only persons who stood for elections in the senior category were the incumbents themselves, the incumbent President and his vice president. In the junior section there were 2 new applicants who stood for election, and both were elected unopposed!

And Singapore mind you has according to the latest reports, 5 million people!

I am gratified to read of this. I and everyone else who has fought this system and continue to be punished by it, were able by our actions to expose the depths to which the law has been misused, as a political tool by this administration. For instance, way back in 1991, when I was punished by disciplinary actions by the Law Society merely because I had questioned the then Attorney General on his refusal to recommend a pardon to the late JB Jeyaretnam, immediately thereafter, there was a large section of lawyers who resigned and emigrated to Australia.

At about the same time, the politically motivated arrest and detention of the former Solicitor General Francis Seow, the repeated politically motivated legal actions against the late JB Jeyaretnam, the cases against Tang Liang Hong who had to flee to Australia, all had an effect on exposing the shameless misuse of the law in Singapore, which has culminated to this today, where no more than 3600 or so lawyers are on the rolls and perhaps just 2000 actually practice law, (the rest either retired or dormant) in a city state of 5 million people!

London indeed!

And I take this opportunity to thank the Singapore lawyers who have so clearly made known their disgust and anathema to this legal profession by refusing to co-operate with this state controlled law organization. I thank the lawyers who have left the country permanently and those who continue to resign from the Singapore legal profession. I also thank the many other Singaporeans both in Singapore and abroad who have shown their disapproval for what is going on in this state controlled law body, by resigning and by refusing to co-operate.

As you know, I am glad at the opportunity now given to me by this administration recently having charged me with professional misconduct, which I have no doubt will result in my disbarment in that city state. With my impending disbarment there, I hope that even more Singaporeans will see the total political control and misuse of the law in Singapore and what remaining few lawyers will also leave both the profession and even the country.

Your refusal to go along with the Law Society by not participating in the elections in the recent Annual General meeting is appreciated and I hope you will continue to show your disgust at what is happening to the law in Singapore by your inaction and resignation.

Thanks a lot. Perhaps now at least this recently hand picked Lee Kuan Yew toady, K Shanmugam would think again before making himself look so silly. Or has he become impervious to shame.

As I have said before, it is not the action of any one of us, but the actions however small of all of us, which help to shame this administration into realizing their actions are beginning to look silly. And such actions by all of us will act as a detonator for real change in Singapore. But the work cannot stop.

I will continue writing what I see is wrong with the system, and I hope this administration will continue to take action in one form or another against me. This way, the issues remain alive with the publicity they generate.

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Is it a mindless waste of taxpayer's money to be paying millions to the sorts like, Lee Kuan Yew's recently handpicked Minister for Law K Shanmugam? This is the question that sometimes comes to mind.

We all know that Singaporean ministers are the highest paid in the world, like the corrupt politicians of Burma and the diamond rich African states. But usually this corruption usually applies to the dictators and the rulers. They don't go around paying petty minions of theirs millions as well, unless of course they have something to offer.

And in this case, I begin to ask, what has this Tamil lawyer have to offer. Of course we know that he has been a PAP card carrying member since he was a boy, for which he scored high marks in the Singaporean University closely protected by Lee Kuan Yew's friends. He was immediately thereafter, under Lee Kuan Yew's orders, given a job in a big law firm, given the top cases and made Minister thereafter.

But why you may ask? He is after all a Tamil. He does not have an uncle who is a CK Tang or a billionaire banker who could give him million dollar cases. Had Lee Kuan Yew not helped him with these jobs, he would probably be in a cubicle office in People's Park Center opposite the Subordinate Courts where all the poor lawyers are. And if Lee Kuan Yew requires his loyalty, I am sure he will be as loyal as he even if paid a fraction of what he gets paid now.

With no connections and no special ability whatsoever, he has nowhere to go, even if the man was paid $5,000.00 a month. And that is what Singaporean taxpayers should be asking. What need is there to pay someone like this Tamil lawyer, millions of dollars of taxpayers money? He would do what he does now for $5,000.00 a month. Singaporeans should demand that the government stop wasting money on men such as this, who have nothing really to offer.

If Lee Kuan Yew was looking for a Tamil to fill the job of Minister for Law for appearances, among the 3600 lawyers in Singapore, you might find a 1,000 for much less.

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.

Singapore's online edition of their state controlled newspaper the Straits Times of Oct 22, 2009 has this story "Doc jailed for drink driving". She is a physician, Dr. Irene Lim Kay Han, a senior consultant radiologist at the Kandang Kerbau maternity Hospital there. On April 26, 2009 at 1.30am early morning, she was found in her stationary car in the middle of Pan Island Expressway, obviously dead drunk; since you need to be completely off your rocker to be doing this! Naturally when the police arrived, they need not ask her what was she smoking. She was reeking to high heaven with alcohol.

I don't know, and neither do I want to check the maximum penalty for this sort of thing, but I would expect an ordinary Singaporean without Lee Kuan Yew's political connections, would have seen jail time of perhaps 2 years!

But you see, in Singapore justice is brazenly and shamelessly selective. First, if you have political connections with Lee Kuan Yew and his friends, a couple of phone calls to a particular judge in the quiet will do wonders. Instead of going to jail, which you deserve, you may never have to go to jail at all.

Let me give you an recent example. About 6 months ago, I would say, this Singapore's state controlled newspaper reported the case of an ethnic Chinese woman editor of a Singapore Chinese newspaper, driving her car, of killing a woman pillion rider on a motorcycle and serious injuring the driver, at the intersection of Adam and Bukit Timah Road because she was not paying attention; she was talking on her cell phone. What is more she ran the red light. A very very serious offence which rightfully deserved a long period of jail time. Yes, she was sent to jail for, if I recollect, 18 months. But you know what, on appeal she did not have to go to jail at all! The judge merely said it was not her fault, this was a mere mistake, never mind the dead woman and running the red light and so on. She walks. But I am sure, if you were thinking like me, you would know why. She is connected. A card carrying sycophant of Lee Kuan Yew. What else did you expect?

And I guess in this specialist doctor radiologist's case it is going to be the same sort of justice. She has said she will appeal. And on appeal, the Singaporean judge will come up again with some nonsense like, this was an honest mistake, she has suffered enough because she had to have sleepless nights over this , etc etc. You see, if she is convicted and sent to jail, she will lose her job as the senior radiologist. As a result instead of emigrating to some other country; if you let her go, she may stay. Her career would not be finished. And you guessed it, she will walk.

You know in any other respectable legal system, instead of people like this being let off scott free, they would receive higher sentences, precisely because they are in positions of authority and should have been more responsible. But it is the other way around in Singapore. The courts don't care anymore care what you think. This is a dictatorship. They rule. And you obey. They are past all that. It's their world now, not yours.

And you find the same misuse of the law when it comes to rich foreigners. I remember some time ago a Scotsman engineer who was dead drunk in Orchard Road, stole the keys to a truck and caused serious damage while on a rampage. Nothing happened to him really. All he had to was to pay a small fine. After all he was a Scots engineer with an important job in Singapore.

A Japanese business owner, thoroughly drunk assaults a taxi driver. Singapore judge lets him off with a fine. Had it been a humble Singapore citizen, unconnected that is, he goes to jail for a long time.

But the severest punishment will go to Lee Kuan Yew's political opponents. If Dr. Chee Soon Juan did any of that, which he will not of course, he would have to spend the rest of his life behind bars.

From this disgraceful pattern of one law for some and another law for others, you can see why the Singapore Judiciary has been thoroughly disgraced. And the International Bar Association had said just that in their 72 page report that the Singaporean judiciary systematically misuses the law selectively, in most cases to silence dissent.

I think this disgraceful message has got through to the Singapore population as well. A proof of this is the fact that no one wants to be a lawyer. There are just more than 3600 lawyers in this city state of 5 million people, which claims to be involved in international banking commerce insurance and trade. Lee Kuan Yew's recently handpicked Minister for Law K Shanmugam compares it to, believe it or not, London, New York and Rome!

With 3600 lawyers for 5 million people in a city like London! Are you kidding!

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.

While you are being maliciously distracted by law soc . please note LKY is receiving awards in USA.LKY , once referred Pres Obama success in the run up to election as ' flash in the pan" . LKY & son are supporters of Bush Sn & Jr.

Finally, please when displaying emails from your readers, request not to print their email address. The system in Singapore are paid to search potential 'troublemakers' and insidiously hurt them in their businesses- the lifeline these readers breathe to live in Singapore.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

It is always the case with newspapers in totalitarian regimes. After some time they don't care anymore whether they look silly. After all who is there to question them? This has been the case with Singapore's state controlled newspaper, the Straits Times for some time now, whose online edition of Oct 15, 2009 has this pathetic story "More lawyers".

It says Singapore now has more lawyers now because there are 3697 of them which is 280 more than in August 2007! Think about it. 3697 lawyers in Singapore which has a population now of 5 million! It is like saying, we had 10 lawyers in 2007, now we have 12!

The figures are disgraceful. You have an island of 5 million people and it has only 3687 of them?

Singapore according to Lee Kuan Yew is a first world country, believe it or not, and it has trading, banking and what not. 3697 lawyers is not enough for an island of 100,000 people, let alone a country with 5 million! You need at least 20 times that number. And saying, it has increased by 280 since 2 years ago is hardly anything to be proud about. It is a shame. A disgraceful shame.

These figures speak for themselves. The severe lack of lawyers is causing the system itself to thoroughly inefficient. And what is worse is this. Throughout the profession what remaining few you have are either inept or inefficient for lack of experience. The experienced ones have just about had it, and packed up and left long ago, mainly for Australia. There are insufficient lawyers in banking insurance and international commerce. Most of the criminals rather defend themselves since a guilty verdict is almost certain, so why waste money.

And despite all the talk by Lee Kuan Yew's handpicked Minister for Law K Shanmugam, there are no takers. Recently he ordered his newspapers to print huge headlines with a picture of a smiling foreign Indian lawyer grinning from cheek to cheek, claiming he has recently joined the Singaporean ranks. What happened? He is probably gone; went as quickly as he came after he read the International Bar Association's scathing attack on Singapore's legal system, one shamelessly beholden to Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew.

And the article claims the Singapore profession is "back on a growth path" because of the increase of 280 lawyers over 2 years. Perhaps they would have said the same had it been an increase of 2 from a total number of 10.

Come on guys. Admit it. You are a disgrace. And it shows in the figures. You can print a whole load of bull. But I tell you what, you will never have any lawyers. You may have a handful as you have now, lawyers without experience imagination, gumption or the courage to stand on their own; it is not going to do you any good.

And we all take credit for the exposure of the Singaporean lie. Dr. Chee takes credit for it by revealing the truth to the International Bar, by challenging their unjust laws and forcing them to send him to prison. I take credit for it by writing here. And every other person who was arrested and persecuted by fines and prison sentences take credit for it, because we manage to reveal the truth. And I and many others will continue to force the hand of these thugs. As as we continue, this administration finds it ever more difficult to get good capable people to manage the ship.

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.

1. Singapore Law Society has not answered whether I will be allowed an opportunity to come to Singapore from the USA, where I live, to physically appear for these proceedings. At present by order of Singapore Immigration, I am not allowed to enter Singapore without their permission in writing. In the event Angela Chopard, Head of Disciplinary Tribunals refuses, it will be a serious denial of due process in a legal proceeding. When a defendant is not allowed to answer the charges by his presence at his trial, there will be a total denial of justice.

We are still waiting for Angela Chopard and her Singapore Disciplinary Tribunal to let me know if I will be allowed to appear in Singapore.

2. This Audrey Lim continues to be a mystery. The head of of the Disciplinary Tribunals, Angela Chopard does not know her full name and according to her , neither does anyone else in her office! A search on Singapore Government reveals a person by the name Lim Yoon Cheng Audrey but we are not able to ascertain who she is, and Angela Chopard does not know. Therefore although she has asked us to write to Audrey Lim, in these circumstances we have declined and told her that communications will remain with her cc Yogeswari d/o N Vadivellu, as she had instructed earlier.

3. As she advised we have written to both Singapore Supreme/ Subordinate Courts for transcripts of my trials in Singapore to which these proceedings refer. We are waiting for the transcripts and have informed her that we expect them to give me a continuance until such time these transcripts are received, I have perused them and a sufficient time is given to mount my defenses. I have pointed to them that these transcipts are fundamental for me to answer these charges, as they all arise from them.

4. I have informed her that I am disputing all charges and will be mounting a vigorous defense. The words used by me to refer to both Singaporean Judges Belinda Ang Saw Ean and Judith Prakash were proper, a proper usage of the English language, not intemperate vulgar or insulting. As for the accusations of my insulting Singaporean police officers and behaving disorderly, these are denied. As for the statements made in the court of Leong Kui Yiu James, they were accurate statements and not actionable.

5. Except for the charges and copies of some of my blog posts from my blog Singapore Dissident www.singaporedissident.blogpost.com and a document called Rules 2008, Anglela Chopard has not given me anything else.

6. I have written to her pointing out that as a Tribunal that is charging me with discipline violations that may result in my loss of livelihood as an Attorney in Singapore if I ever wanted to practice there, this is a very serious matter, and it is incumbent on them, under the rules of discovery that they provide each and every document/ information to me, without my asking for them, to enable me to prosecute this defense.

What is surprising so far is this. Unless I specifically ask Angela Chopard for documentation, she appears to think that all she has to do is to forward the charges and copies of my blog post. Her superiors should advise her that this is not enough, at least not so in a civilized country.

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.

1. The Singaporean Law Society has commenced disciplinary proceedings against me for among other allegations, insulting your Singaporean Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean. I was tried in your Singaporean Supreme Court in 2008 by your judge Kan Ting Chiu and sent to prison for 3 months. Please let me have those transcripts which were yet to be handed to me last year. I was handed a couple but not all.

2. I was tried in the Singaporean Subordinate Courts in 2008 in relation to another matter, re: insulting police officers and disorderly behavior. Please let me have all court transcripts sent to the above stated address.

I refer to your email below. For the purpose of the DisciplinaryProceedings, namely DT/12/2009, please address all future correspondencesto Ms Audrey Lim who is the Secretary for this Disciplinary Tribunal Case.She will then forward them to the Disciplinary Tribunal President andMember, who will give instructions accordingly.

2. You may send your correspondences to my email address and copy it toMs Yogeswari. Unless otherwise stated, we will similarly reply to you atyour email address.

Privileged/Confidential information may be contained in this message. Ifyou are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete itimmediately. Do not copy, disclose or disseminate it or its contents in anyform.

Second, you say I should address them to "Audrey Lim". Is this the same ethnic Chinese woman "Lim Yoon Cheng Audrey", and should I not be referring to her by her correct full name? Please confirm.

Third you say I should copy them to Ms. Yogeswari. I believe it is the same woman as Yogeswari daughter of (d/o)N Vadivellu. Please confirm this is so. She has sent an Email to me stating she will not be in her office until October 22, 2009. I trust you are aware, and sending anything to her now, would be a waste of time. Please confirm.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF GOPALAN NAIR (A.K.A. PALLICHADATH GOPALAN NAIR) AN ADVOCATE & SOLICITOR

I refer to your email below.

2. DT/12/2009 is the Disciplinary Tribunal Proceedings which has been instituted, in which you are the Respondent. A copy of the following documents were sent to you at your office address, namely 39737 Paseo Padre Parkway Suite A1 Fremont CA 94538 United States of America, by way of DHL: (i) Notice of Disciplinary Tribunal Proceedings dated 8 October 2009; (ii) Affidavit of Rajendram Ambika; and (iii) Statement of the Case specifying the charges and allegations which you are required to answer.

Privileged/Confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete it immediately. Do not copy, disclose or disseminate it or its contents in any form.

Thank you for your Email dated Oct 19, 2009 in which you say, we should write to one "Audrey Lim". We do not know who this person is. We checked up the Singapore Government which has someone by the name "Lim Yoon Cheng Audrey". We had asked you for the full name of this person Audrey Lim, but you said that "you do not know her full name and neither does anyone in your office!" We do not know whether Audrey Lim is the same as Lim Yoon Cheng. As such, not knowing the identity of the person, we cannot write to "Audrey Lim". She is possibly hiding under false pretences. We will continue to write to you, Angela Chopard, Head of Disciplinary Tribunal and copy the letter to Yogeswari d/o(daughter of) N Vadivellu. You will understand our caution in these troubling circumstances of this "Audrey Lim" whoever she is.

2. Request for transcripts of the proceedings before District JudgeJames Leong and Justice Belinda Ang should be made directly to theSubordinate Courts and the High Court respectively. Your request may bemade to the following addresses:

Subordinate Courts of Singapore 1 Havelock Square Singapore 059724

Supreme Court of Singapore 1 Supreme Court Lane Singapore 178879

3. As requested, enclosed is a softcopy of the Legal Profession(Disciplinary Tribunal) Rules 2008.

(See attached file: LEGAL PROFESSION (DT) RULES 2008.pdf)

4. Regarding your request on the timelines for filing the responses andto prepare your Defence, we have forwarded them to the DisciplinaryTribunal and we will revert with their directions in due course.

Privileged/Confidential information may be contained in this message. Ifyou are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete itimmediately. Do not copy, disclose or disseminate it or its contents in anyform.

When you say that "I requested for this document", you are not being fair. Athough I had asked for it, it should be you sending it to me, without my asking. Again, as a tribunal, may I point out it is incumbent on you to provide the necessary directions to the defendant to enable him to defend. Your Singaporean tribunal fails to understand this when you say you are sending me this document becasue "I requested it".

Again, I trust, I need not have to point out to you again, that as a tribunal, it remains your continuing duty to provide all directions to your defendant without him having to ask for it. I trust you will point this out to Lim Yoon Cheng (or as she likes to call herself, Audrey), so that I need not have to tell you again your duties.

Again, please let me have without my asking any other document that pertains to these procedures. If there is any more other than these rules, please let me know, and provide it immediately. For the moment, because you have not sent any other document, I assume this is the only document that pertains to procedures in this case. If not, please let me have immedaitely any other document/ documents that pertains to defending this complaint.

Secondly I note you have not addresed my question to you whether I will be permitted to enter Singapore, to attend and give oral testimony in my defense at the tribunal. Please let me know immedaitley whether you will ensure my safe conduct in entering Singapore, while within Singapore and departing Singapore. As you are aware, I am already in contempt of your Singaporean court once again, for critizing your Singaporean Judge Judith Prakash, calling her a kangarroo, among other things, and Judge Leslie Chew for reposting the blogs in question and withdrawing any apology made while I was under duress in a Singaporean prison last year. Please confirm that your Singaporean police will not arrest me and throw me in jail again, for this while there.

As for the requests for the transcripts, I will be writing to both the Singaporean High Court and the Singaporean Subordinate Court for them relating to my 2 cases there. I trust I have your assurance that you will not proceed further until you hear from me that those transcripts are received and a sufficient time is given to me to peruse them to mount my defense.

Let me warn you that sources all over the world are watching your conduct in this matter. Every communication will be posted in my blog "Singapore Dissident" (www.singaporedissident.blogspot.com). It will be in your interest, to ensure that you are not seen confirming yet again, what was said in the 72 page report of the International Bar Association which accused you of systematically misusing the law to punish those who criticize Lee Kuan Yew and his government.

One more clarification. In your Email to me today, you refer to my proceedings before Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean. This is incorrect. I never appeared before this judge as a party. I was in attendence in her court during the Lee Kuan Yew vs Dr. Chee Soon Juan case in 2008 as an observer, when I wrote in my blog, among other criticisms, that "she had shamelessly prostituted herself as a judge by being shamelessly biased" in favor of Lee Kuan Yew agaisnt Dr. Chee. For this I was tried and convicted by another judge Kan Ting Chiu in the Singaporean High Court.

So the transcripts required will be those relating to my case before this judge, not Singaporean Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean.

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.

Friday, October 16, 2009

The online edition of Singapore's state controlled newspaper the Straits Times of Oct 16, 2009 has this article "Falungong man arrested". This article insults a proud and democratic Australia, a country which prides in their rule of law, by comparing one of Singapore's unjust laws that permit the police to order anyone to move away or face arrest; by claiming that "these laws were modelled after similar measures in Australia." It is as if Adolf Hitler claims their laws of sending Jews to concentration camps were modelled on similar laws in England!

Tell me whether this Singaporean law is just and whether the man will ever be arrested if he did it in Australia?

The man Chua Eng Chwee, 69, a Falungong practitioner was seen by Singaporean police peacefully protesting with some placards under a bridge. He was not bothering anyone, he was not violent, there was no danger to anyone else. In other words, he was as peaceful as a tombstone.

For no apparent reason whatsoever, Singaporean police come along and tell him to get lost. He refuses, and so would I if I was a Falungong practitioner in his shoes. Merely for refusing to move, when there was no harm to anyone else, he is arrested and thrown in jail. He will have a trial after which he will spend a specified number of additional days in jail, and if he was a foreigner, deported.

Under a new Singaporean law, the Public Order Act, it is an arrestable offense not to go away after being ordered to do so a few times by Singaporean police. It does not matter even if you were peacefully protesting quietly alone, as in this case. In this Singapore Police State, where the police can order you to do almost anything they want, you must comply with their orders or go to jail.

Not only in Australia nor in England and nor in any other civilized country in the world would this man be arrested for what he did. He had broken no law. Of course if a man was about to commit an offence, or if a protest is getting out of hand and becoming violent, the police would of course have the right to take the necessary action.

But for Singapore's state controlled newspaper to have the gall to say that this man's arrest was based on similar laws in Australia is to insult every single upstanding self respecting Australian.

No one would have complained had this Singapore's state controlled newspaper compared this Singaporean police action to that which happens daily in Burma or North Korea. But this sort of thing will never be tolerated in Australia, I can assure you that.

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.

Dear Sir,I was browsing the web and decided to visit Singapore on the net, this is why I click to your blog.

I came back in July from a 2 years stay in Singapore.

I do not understand why you don't let things go and jump over the river.

After 2 years of Singapore, I know it there is no free press and that the People are manipulated, but:Every time I flew in at Changi during those 2 years, after visiting an other country in South East Asia, during the journey from the Airport to my condo, I thought of what Lee Kuan Yew has achieved, there is nothing comparable in the neighboring countries.

I must admit that when I visited Taiwan last may, for a week visit, I was also astonished to see, that democracy, like we know in Europe, also can function in Asia.I am French, I live in Switzerland, democracy in Europe many times stop things to be done.

There will be a life after MM, I sincerely hope his achievements will continue.

Today is October 16, 2009, 3.48pm, at my office in Fremont California. This is the latest on Singapore's project to disqualify me from practicing law in Singapore.

October 12, 2009: I received some papers from the Singaporean Disciplinary Tribunal Secretariat, 1 Supreme Court Lane, Singapore 178879, Tel: 6332 4040 and 6332 4060, signed by Ms Audrey Lim (Audrey Lim Yoon Cheng, but she signs only as Audrey Lim), delivered to me by DHL Courier. There were 2 small bundles, one called a statement of case, containing about 28 pages, which stated the charges tendered by a Singaporean law firm Colin Ng and Partners LLP. However it does not state the name of any person in the firm, the signature merely being "Colin Ng and Partners" (Signature illegible).

Then there is another bundle containing slightly more pages, which contains an affidavit by Rajendram Ambika ""who states she is "Director of Conduct" (strange English) of the Singaporean Law Society". In the affidavit she says there are allegations of misconduct against me, such as I had said, in reference to the Singaporean judge Belinda Ang "the judge was throughout prostituting herself during the entire proceedings (Lee Kuan Yew vs Dr. Chee Soon Juan), by being nothing more than an employee of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew and his son and carrying out their orders" (words in parenthesis are mine). And similar to this charge, there are the other charges that I used similar words to describe another Singaporean judge Judith Prakash; that I had been charged and convicted of yelling curses at Singaporean police officers and that I had told Singaporean judge Leong Kui Yiu James that I had no respect for his court or his jurisprudence etc.

Also included in this bundle were copies of various of my blog posts that they were using to prove that I said is what they accuse me of.

Other than this, the Singaporean Disciplinary Secretariat has not attached anything else. No directions on how to respond, to whom to respond. Nothing.

They ask for the name of my Singapore lawyer. I have told them I act in person.

October 12, 2009:I write a letter to Singaporean Secretariat asking if they will arrange for a visa for me to attend the hearing in Singapore, as the Singaporean state controlled newspapers had earlier reported that they would. This is posted on this blog.

October 13, 2009: I write to Singaporean Secretariat telling them it is not sufficient for them merely to ask for my Singapore lawyer. I have none. I represent myself. It is their duty to send me copies of their laws and regulations on the procedure to me, so I can respond to this. They have not done it. I also ask for all transcripts of my trial in Singapore on their accusation that I insulted Singaporean judge Belinda Ang and the transcripts in the trial of my having hurled curses at a Malay Singaporean policeman among other accusations. Without the full and complete transcripts I would not be given an opportunity to sufficiently represent myself.

Oct 14, 2009:As I have not heard anything from the Singaporean Secretariat, I telephone them. Long conversation with a woman named Angela Chopard. She is the Head of this Singaporean Tribunal secretariat. However she has to take orders from this woman who works upstairs from her office, Audrey Lim (Lim Yoon Cheng). She claims she took instructions (presumably from Lim Yoon Cheng but she will not say) that I should Email all questions to her and send it cc to Yogeswari N Vadivellu. She claims she never reads my blog Singapore Dissident and no one in her office reads it. She claims she does not know the full name of Audrey Lim and no one else in her office does! She claims she has not seen my letters.

Oct 15, 2009:Since the Singaporean Secretariat (Angela Chopard) claims she has not received my letters and neither does she read my blog, it is necessary to send the letters which were posted Airmail again to her via Email? This I do according to her instructions by sending them to her and copying them to Yogeswari D/O N Vadivellu. These Emails are 1) whether they will give me a visa to come to Singapore and 2) whether they will provide the legal literature and the court transcripts to enable my response.

Oct 15, 2009:A very unpleasant conversation with Chopard. The moment she picks up the phone she yells! When I ask her to calm down, she says that she just returned from lunch. When I ask if that is the reason why she is so angry, she says nothing. A most unusual reason to be upset just because you came back from lunch!

I tell her that she is liable to get a heart attack if she gets so agitated for no reason. She responds by saying I shouldn't tell her such things. I ask her again whether I should mail things to her as a person since the documents that were sent to me were from Lim Yoon Cheng. She barks, it is fine, send them to her and cc them to her colleague Yogeswri d/o N Vadivellu.

I don't know why she suddenly became so confrontational but a guess would be that Lim Yoon Cheng must have told her off for talking to me or giving me any information, and perhaps she finds herself right in the middle of the cross fire between her boss, who takes instructions from Lee Kuan Yew and me on the other hand, in this project to have Gopalan Nair disqualified from ever practicing law in the Singaporean legal system.

It will be challenging to see how she will respond to my next phone call. Perhaps this time, she will instruct her office to say she is not there! An interesting first world country according to Lee Kuan Yew's claims!

Oct 16, 2009:As of today, there is no news from Angela Chopard and her Singaporean Secretariat. Except that the charges against me and some copies of my blog posts were mailed to me on Oct 12, 2009, there is total silence. Today I received an Email from Yogeswari d/o N Vadivellu, an employee at the Disciplinary Secretariat, to whom I was requested to send copies of my emails to Chopard, that Singaporean Disciplinary Secretariat will not respond to any of my Emails until October 22, 2009 when Yogeswari returns from her vacation!

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

You have advised me to send all Emails relating to this matter to you. However the letters send to me from your office, Disciplinary Tribunal Secretariat, were signed, as you know by "Ms Audrey Lim, Secretary, Disciplinary Tribunal".

For the sake of clarification, although you claimed you did not know the full name of Ms Audrey Lim, can you now please confirm that her name is indeed Audrey Lim Yoon Cheng. ( Our attention has been brought to her full name) This is important to avoid any possibility in the future of mistaken identity.

Or are you still claiming that even though she works upstairs from your office and is your "boss", you still do not know her full name?

Second, as the documents served on me, refer to Audrey Lim (actually I think Audrey Lim Yoon Cheng), please confirm whether I should be addressing all future correspondence to you, Angela Chopard, or to Ms Audrey Lim Yoon Cheng.

I would appreciate a reply soonest.

Yours Faithfully

Gopalan Nair

Postcript: Just had a word with Angela Chopard over the telephone. Asked her if I should be addressing all Emails to her "Angela Chopard" or to "Ms Audrey Lim, Secretary, Disciplinary Tribunal". She first seemed uncertain as to what to say. When the question was reapeated a number of times, she finally said that I am to address the Emails to her, that is to Angela Chopard even though the letters were signed by Audrey Lim. Time 11.15pm,Fremont, near San Francisco.

Recall our conversation over the telephone yesterday October 15, 2009, California time. You informed me that you would prefer all communication from me about this matter be addressed to you via Email. You specifically warned that if you are on leave no one will be attending to your Emails. As to my question whether you are intending to go on leave, you said no, but you were unable to say. Therefore you advised that I send the Email not only to you but also copy it to Yogeswari d/o N Vadivellu, one of your co-workers.

Although it is puzzling why official correspondence via Email to you would be unattended if you go on leave is puzzling, we will leave it as it is. However I would suggest that perhaps a better practice would be for you to advise your other staff to attend to your office Emails while you go on leave, but it is none of my business. I understand I am dealing with Singapore which has some rather unexplainable practices.

It would much easier if you could read my blog Singapore Dissident at which I post all correspondence, but since you say that neither you , nor anyone in your office reads my blog, which is suprising in the circumstances, I will be sending you all communication through Email as you yourself have requested.

I am attaching below 2 letters which I had sent to you about this matter, now via this Email as you request:

Thank you for your letter dated Oct 8, 2009 informing me that a disciplinary tribunal has been set up to hear charges against me, that Mr. Toh Kian Sing , Singapore's Senior Counsel (defines a senior Singapore lawyer) and Mr. Tan Jee Ming, Advocate and Solicitor (the name for Singapore lawyers) are the members of this tribunal.

You have also asked me for the name of my lawyer. I will not be appointing a lawyer and will represent myself.

Earlier newspaper reports from Singapore's state controlled press had, while reporting on this case, said that "I will be invited to attend the hearing".

When I was repatriated from Singapore with my American passport last year, I was specifically informed by Singaporean Immigration Officers that I can no longer enter Singapore without a visa, that I would have to receive your government's permission in writing, which I assume is a visa, before I can enter the country. (Ordinarily US citizens are allowed to enter without a visa)

Since I was born there, it would be good if I can come to Singapore once more on a short visit, and look up some of my friends and visit the places I used to frequent as a boy; while I take care of this disciplinary matter as well.

Please let me know whether I have an opportunity to represent myself in these proceedings and will your Singapore Immigration Authorities give me a visa for this purpose.

First Class/ Air/ Also posted on blog “Singapore Dissident” www.singaporedissident.blogspot.com

SINGAPORE LAW SOCIETY VS GOPALAN NAIR/ DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

Dear Ms Audrey Lim,

1. I refer to your 3 letters dated Oct 08, 2009, in which you state Disciplinary Proceedings have been commenced against me, under Rule 6 of the Singapore Legal Profession (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2008; a reference is made to Section 90(1) of the Singapore Legal Profession Act; you state a tribunal has been set up to hear a complaint against me; the names of the 2 gentlemen who are going to adjudicate the matter and an enquiry to me as to who my lawyer is.

2. You have also attached a bundle of papers named “statement of case” and another as “Affidavit”.

3. As you are aware, I intend to represent myself.

4. In normal common law jurisprudence, of which Singapore claims to be one, it is a legal requirement that the Defendant be appraised not only of the charges against him, but also how he is required to respond and the basic procedures that apply to it.

5. I live in Northern California and have not lived in Singapore since 1991. Neither have I practiced law there ever since. I am of course practicing law in California, which you can expect has a completely different set of rules, laws and procedures. Further, America is a democracy which respects fundamental human rights.

6. Although I am able to retrieve the Singapore statutes online from California, such as the Singapore Legal Profession Act, I have no access to what you call the Singapore Legal Profession (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2008 or do I have any idea what in Heavens is Section 90(1) which you refer to.

7. Let me point out that regardless of whether one has access to the legal literature or not, it is a normal practice and a requirement under the principle of natural justice that the opponent be given a meaningful opportunity to respond. That means he is told, when charges are laid, how many days he has to respond and to whom does he respond. As an example, the Summons filed and served in California courts is accompanied with a notice to the Defendant that he has 30 days to respond and to whom does he do it. This is not only a legal requirement, it is also common decency.

8. Furthermore as I live in California, I have no access to Singapore legal publications, and I have no way to check up the particular set of Rules that you mention or any other laws that pertain to this case.

9. Second, of course I can come to Singapore personally to do the necessary research and defend myself in these proceedings but I am sure you can see the problem with that. According to your charges, since my return to California, I have not only offended Judge Judith Prakash for calling her a Kangaroo Judge among other things, for which I have been now charged, I have deliberately defied your Judge Leslie Chew’s court order to take down certain blog posts by putting them up again and retracting my apology which I was coerced to give while within Singapore and in chains! This means the real possibility that I will be arrested the moment Singapore Airlines SQ1 lands at Changi International, provided that is the airline I take, in Singapore having departed Taipei! A most unwise decision.

10. But I assure you that I intend to defend these charges in earnest. It will be doing a great service to the public at large to weigh the issues, balance the merits and decide not only whether I deserve to be punished, it will be a golden opportunity to see the Singapore legal system and their administration of justice first hand.

11. The 2 cases that are the subject of these proceedings, one being the disorderly conduct and abusing Singapore police officers case; the other being the insult of Judge Belinda Ang case. The Belinda Ang case took about 8 days in the High Court and the disorderly case took about 18 days in the Subordinate Court. You will appreciate that in order to challenge these disciplinary proceedings for the Judge Belinda Ang case, it is necessary for me to have the entire transcripts of the testimony in court. Similarly for the 18 day subordinate Court case. Without the transcripts, the accuracy of what I will say about it would be compromised. In the circumstances, if you intend to give me a fair opportunity to defend myself, I ask the following:

a. Please let me have the entire transcripts of the proceedings that took place in the Subordinate Court for full 18 days before Judge James Leong. I was given none.

b. Second, although I was given some transcripts of the High Court Belinda Ang matter, I did not receive all of them, due to my sudden repatriation from Singapore and the High Court claiming that those transcripts were yet to be typed. Kindly provide all the missing transcripts.

c. Please provide copies of the Rules that you mention and any other information necessary on the procedure that Singaporean disciplinary tribunals and parties have to adopt in such proceedings.

d. Please provide all time lines for filing the responses.

e. Once the above is provided, let me have 30 days to prepare for the necessary defense.

f. Please provide your Email address and telephone number.

g. If you do this no one could say that you had not given me an opportunity to be heard, which they would if you ignore this reasonable request.

h. I trust you understand that merely asking me for the name of my lawyer is not enough.

12. Requiring me to defend these charges is like asking a VFR pilot to fly under IFR conditions in total darkness, blind with a malfunctioning altimeter, horizon indicator and a blocked pitot tube!

13. Please note that my Email address is nair.gopalan@yahoo.com and my telephone number is 510 657 6107. Please note that we are 16 hours behind Singapore time. If calling please do so between 9 am to 5 pm, on weekdays only. Lunch is between 12 noon to 1 pm. There is a voice receiver if no one is present at the phone.

14. I trust you are serious not only in ensuring justice is done in this case but are concerned of your public image if no real opportunity is seen given to me for a defense.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Last modified: Oct 15, 2009: Yogeswari's name is ascertained as Yogeswari d/o N Vadivellu. Recall earlier she denied she had any other name other than Yogeswari. Her correct EMail is yogeswari_n_vadivellu@supcourt.gov.sg and not support.gov.sg. My mistake.

As for Audrey Lim, the Assistant Registrar, Chopard refers to, her name is Audrey Lim Yoon Cheng. Recall, when I asked Chopard for this woman's full name, she said she did not know, and that no one in her office knew her full name! This fear of revealing their true identities seems a common trait among Singaporeans who work in Lee Kuan Yew's government.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Since I received no directions on how to proceed with defending myself in these disciplinary proceedings, I telephoned the Singapore Disciplinary Tribunal Secretariat, the organization that had written to me. I called at about 7.15pm, California Time from my office, in Fremont, 15 miles from San Francisco.

Gopalan Nair: This is Gopalan Nair. What is your name please?

Yogeswari: This is the Yoges.

Gopalan Nair: Is that your full name?

Yogeswari: No my full name is Y-o-g-e-s-w-a-r-i (spells it)

Gopalan Nair: Is that your first name? Do you have another name? Can I have your full name?

Yogeswari: I have only one name!

Gopalan Nair: What is your job title?

Yogeswari: I am an Operations Support Officer.

Gopalan Nair: What is that? Are you a clerk?

Yogeswari: Yes. Hold a minute please.

(She keeps me on hold for some time. In the background I can hear some agitation. She appeared in a hurry not to speak anymore to me. I guess it is the fear that blankets a society such as Singapore. I guess her designation of Operations Support Officer is none other than a junior general clerk who does simple tasks in the office under instruction)

Angela Chopard: Hello what can I do for you? My name is Angela Chopard. I am in charge of collating documents, I am the head of this department, I collate the documents and send them to the parties, and my job title is Head of Disciplinary Tribunals.

(Even though she had a foreign name, she was very much a local Singaporean from the way she spoke English, the Singaporean singsong cross between Hokkien Chinese singsong and English)

Gopalan Nair: All the papers sent to me were from Audrey Lim. Who is Audrey Lim? She signs her name in the letters as "Ms Audrey Lim, Secretary, Disciplinary Tribunal".

Angela Chopard: She is the Deputy Registrar of the Singapore Supreme Court. The first lot of documents is sent by the Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court. Audrey Lim is my boss.

Gopalan Nair: Wait a minute. I thought that you said you are the head of your department. Now you say you have a boss? I don't understand.

Angela Chopard: Yes I am the head of department. But I take orders from Audrey Lim. Could you send me an Email instead? I will give you my Email.

Gopalan Nair: It is necessary for me to speak to you now. Please can I continue?

Angela Chopard: Yes

Gopalan Nair: Again, I am confused by whom I should be speaking to. Should I be speaking to your boss Audrey Lim or to you since you say that you take instructions from her?

Angela Chopard: Mailing the documents will be by me.

Gopalan Nair: This person, Audrey Lim. Does she have a full name? Chinese people, who take on a Western first name like Tony Tan, usually have other names such as Tony Tan Tong Wong. Does Audrey Lim have a full name and if so what is it?

Angela Chopard: I don't know her full name. Everyone calls her by that name. In all the documents there is only that name.

Gopalan Nair: Do you read my blog Singapore Dissident. Are you aware that I post matters relating to this matter in my blog?

Angela Chopard: No I have never read your blog. I am not conversant with computers and things like blogs. I have not read anything.

Gopalan Nair: Does your office read my blog? I have posted 2 letters to you in my blog and mailed them to you. Are you aware?

Angela Chopard: No I am not aware. I have not received your letters.

Gopalan Nair: Are you aware that the Singapore government and the Singapore Attorney Generals Chambers read my blog carefully. For example, they have charged me with insulting Judith Prakash in my blog which I wrote after I returned to California?

Angela Chopard: I am not aware if they read your blog.

Gopalan Nair: About why the documents are signed by Audrey Lim while Chopard is the head of department

Angela Chopard: These letters to you were generated by me but signed by Audrey Lim

(It appears Yogeswari is actually Yogeswari Vadivellu or something of the sort. She must have been afraid to reveal her true name. This happens very often in Singapore)

Gopalan Nair: Can I speak to Audrey Lim?

Angela Chopard: Can I check if she is around? (She leaves, and returns a while later) Audrey Lim is now attending a hearing. But let me check (leaves again). Returns and says: You can send Emails to me and not Audrey Lim. I received this instruction to relay to you.

Gopalan Nair: But I though you said Audrey Lim was at a hearing? Who gave you this instruction?

Angela Chopard: It was my colleague. We co-operate with each other about these things. I don't know everything. Sometimes my colleagues help me.

(From this it appears to me that Audrey Lim was not at a hearing but upstairs and told Chopard to ask me to Email to her)

Gopalan Nair: What is the name of the colleague who gave you this instruction?

Angela Chopard: Sorry, I cannot reveal the name.

Gopalan Nair: Did you expect me to have the Singapore statutes and rules relating to disciplinary proceedings in California? Did it not occur to you that you should let me have the necessary legislation on how to defend these charges?

Angela Chopard: I did not think of your not being in Singapore. In Singapore when these are sent out to Singaporean lawyers, no instructions are sent. They are expected to know what to do. (She admits that she overlooked the need to send me the relevant legislation).

Angela Chopard promises that she will send the necessary legislation to me. I told her that I need an extension of time to look at the legislation etc before responding. She says the time limitation is 14 days to respond. I said I could not since I don't have the legislation nor the rules nor other regulations and will not be able to respond until I have these. I need an extension of time. She says extensions are decided by tribunal head Toh Kian Sing. She asked me to put all my questions and requests to her in emails and she will respond. She promised to send the legislation. She cannot guarantee that any extension will be given as it is up to Toh Kian Sing.

I told her that I am making a request for an extension of time until I have had time to read the documents I requested and then a reasonable time thereafter to respond.

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.

Followers

About Me

Determined to find the Truth.
Born Singapore, educated Winstedt School 2 (next to Monks Hill in Newton, Singapore) Raffles Institution, National Service, some travel in Europe, then law studies England, return to Singapore, practiced for 10 years, active Workers Party member, stood elections 1988 and 1991 in Singapore, was harassed and persecuted by Lee Kuan Yew for my political beliefs, left for USA, obtained asylum and admitted California State Bar, practice law ever since in Fremont California near San Francisco. Relinquished Singapore citizenship 2005 because I was not prepared to permit Lee Kuan Yew to unjustly retain my CPF funds if I remained Singapore Citizen. On principle, the only correct thing for me to do was to give it up, for my CPF funds. I am an American Citizen as of 2004.